Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-03 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: > The change to filter-branch itself looks obviously correct. The only > objectionable thing I noticed in the test additions is that the early > ones should be marked test_expect_failure until the fix from 3/4 flips > them to "success". Otherwise it breaks

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-03 Thread Devin J. Pohly
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 02:55:35AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > The only objectionable thing I noticed in the test additions is that > the early ones should be marked test_expect_failure until the fix from > 3/4 flips them to "success". Otherwise it breaks bisectability. > > -Peff Good point. Will

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-03 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Devin J. Pohly" writes: > > > I think your point is interesting too, though. If a commit is also > > TREESAME to its parent(s?) in the _pre-filtered_ branch, it seems > > reasonable that someone might want to

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-02 Thread Jacob Keller
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Devin J. Pohly" writes: > >> I think your point is interesting too, though. If a commit is also >> TREESAME to its parent(s?) in the _pre-filtered_ branch, it seems >> reasonable that someone might

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
"Devin J. Pohly" writes: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> "Devin J. Pohly" writes: >> >> > I think your point is interesting too, though. If a commit is also >> > TREESAME to its parent(s?) in the _pre-filtered_ branch,

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-02 Thread Devin J. Pohly
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:36:18AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Devin J. Pohly" writes: > > > I think your point is interesting too, though. If a commit is also > > TREESAME to its parent(s?) in the _pre-filtered_ branch, it seems > > reasonable that someone might want to

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-03-02 Thread Junio C Hamano
"Devin J. Pohly" writes: > I think your point is interesting too, though. If a commit is also > TREESAME to its parent(s?) in the _pre-filtered_ branch, it seems > reasonable that someone might want to leave it in the filtered branch as > an empty commit while pruning

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-02-23 Thread Devin J. Pohly
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 01:17:49PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Devin J. Pohly" writes: > > > Previously, the git_commit_non_empty_tree function would always pass any > > commit with no parents to git-commit-tree, regardless of whether the > > tree was nonempty. The new

Re: [PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-02-23 Thread Junio C Hamano
"Devin J. Pohly" writes: > Previously, the git_commit_non_empty_tree function would always pass any > commit with no parents to git-commit-tree, regardless of whether the > tree was nonempty. The new commit would then be recorded in the > filter-branch revision map, and

[PATCH 3/4] filter-branch: fix --prune-empty on parentless commits

2017-02-23 Thread Devin J. Pohly
Previously, the git_commit_non_empty_tree function would always pass any commit with no parents to git-commit-tree, regardless of whether the tree was nonempty. The new commit would then be recorded in the filter-branch revision map, and subsequent commits which leave the tree untouched would be